Perhaps (wild, totally out of the air guessing) people were making sugar of lead [wikipedia.org] using the bullets? Or perhaps, some little kid thought it was candy or something and ended up swallowing a bullet and the ammo-maker had to settle for the medical bills?

Could be worse. If the researcher was within 1000KM of a 3D printer then the/. geeks would loudly claim that we can now 3D print batteries. Worst of all, if there was a story about Mars or Elon Musk in the last week, the story would have been about how sugar batteries will help private space tourists to colonize Mars.

Carbon / Sodium battery not sugar battery. Must be just like Spenda -- We processed sugar so that it is no longer sugar, so we can make a stupid claim that gets your attention because you are fooled into thinking it is somehow made of sugar.

It seems to me pretty disingenuous to say that the batteries are using sugar when it's really just carbon powder (which can be made from sugar).

But we're not talking sugar straight out of the paper packet. Before it can be used as the anode in a sodium-ion battery, sucrose powder is turned into hard carbon powder by heating it to up to 1,500 degrees celsius in an oxygen-free oven

Not really. You could probably get carbon from coal cheaply enough. Especially with many countries no longer using coal from power plants and such. Carbon is not a rare element by any means. There's probably much cheaper ways to get carbon powder than heating up sugar to 1500 degrees. I really don't know how similar it is to what they are using, but graphite powder [amazon.com] is pretty cheap. If you're actually using it produce batteries, the bulk price is even cheaper [alibaba.com]. Only about 20 cents a pound.

Coal probably wouldn't work. It contains impurities that would need to be removed. That's why steel was traditionally smelted with charcoal.

Also, bear in mind that this is a university project, not a factory. They can just send an undergrad to the market to pick up sugar. I'm not sure what the price there is (I never bought sugar when I lived there, since I ate at the chow hall and can't drink coffee), but they grow sugar cane in Okinawa and probably don't have the price fixing that sugar has in America

Cane sugar isn't the same thing as what you get in the bag. It has to be refined first. Raw sugar cane wouldn't have any advantage over other biomass for making pure carbon.

Concerning energy production, sugar cane is one of the few places where ethanol fuel makes sense. In Brazil they estimate they get 1.3 times the energy from ethanol than they put into producing it. That's a much better figure than corn ethanol, which is an energy loss.

It seems to me pretty disingenuous to say that the batteries are using sugar when it's really just carbon powder (which can be made from sugar).

Yeah, but see, the people who actually did make these batteries... they used sugar to do it. It really doesn't matter worth a flying fuck what they "could" have done, it's still not disingenous to report on what they did.

So wait, people, I've got an idea for taking the protons, electrons, and neutrons in Sugar(!) and rearranging groups of 144 neutrons and 94 protons and combining them into a new configuration which is Pu-238 (plutonium 238 [wikipedia.org]) and use them to create a super-duper new battery that has even more energy density!

If they can argue that carbonizing C_6 H_12 O_6 into carbon with high temperature still allows them to call it a "sugar battery", I argue that my elemental alchemist's transformation into plutonium can a

If they can argue that carbonizing C_6 H_12 O_6 into carbon with high temperature still allows them to call it a "sugar battery", I argue that my elemental alchemist's transformation into plutonium can also be called a sugar battery.

If you can actually do it, then by all means, patent your nuclear sugar battery.

It's the making it that's the hard part.

Hell, TFA even says "In reality, there are many raw materials that can be turned into carbon in a similar fashion, but the advantage to using sugar is that's it's practically an unlimited resource."

If you can make plutonium out of sugar, then I bet you'll be a rich man, because gold would be trivial.

I was commenting on the humor of still calling it sugar, not making light of the achievement of using sugar to heat. Carbon is actually fairly cheap to find without any attached hydrogens or oxygens. It's so abundant that we take the output of coal mines and just burn it for energy. Anyway, the comments about "Alchemy" should have given away the joking tone about rearranging subatomic particles.

Also, a ton of sugar would cost a lot more than a ton of coal. The amount of coal is so abundant still that the market price of it is lower than the cost of raising sugar-cane or sugar-beets and refining them into sugar.

a ton of coal costs from $30 per 2000 lbs in Y2K upto $150 per 2000 lbs in the year 2008, and about $30-$50 per ton in May of 2012.

a ton of sugar would cost about $600 with the world price of sugar at less than 60 cents per kilogram.

Of course there are leftovers. I was not trying to balance the equations for C_6 H_{12} O_6 on one side and Pu^{238}_1 on the other side. I was using my Alchemist's license, which I keep on hand next to my Poetic License. If I were eco-freakin'-good, I could balance it and take the left-over protons+neutrons+electrons and create plain old {H_2 O} out of it.:)

Nope, not whoosh. Alternate joke. In the US southern dialect of English, "getting some sugar" means getting affection from the opposite sex (most often a woman giving to a man though, as per other cultural biases in the south).

Battery tech is growing fast. I saw a PBS show on research that has a pretty good grasp of how to replicate plantlife's ability to convrrt sunlight into sugars. The batteries based on this are already providing all the needs of mid-sized office buildings.

I found it in three seconds by asking Aunt Google. It varies by type but is generally around 920 kg/m^3. Given 7-9 kcal/g (since I'm not sure what a cm^4 would be anyway, I'll assume that was a typo), Aunt Google says 6.44 - 8.28 kcal/cm^3. Of course, she also said that 3.94 (kcal / g) * (1.58700 (g / (cm^3))) = 6.25278 kcal / (cm^3), which makes oil practically the same to around 20% better.

First, regarding the so-called sugar battery;It's really a sodium-ion battery.They claim a 20% increase in power storage over a lithium-ion, which probably means a 20% decrease in cost, best case.Sodium-ion batteries have cycle problems - after about 50 charge/discharges, they typically have 50% of their original capacity. They don't even talk about this, so I'm betting they haven't solved the problem.

Second, about lithium-ion batteries;Lithium isn't rare - you could extract it from sea water for about 3 times what it costs now. Even at that price it wouldn't mean much to lithium-ion batteries, because despite the name, lithium isn't the primary ingredient, nor is it the most costly.

Envia's breakthrough battery [nytimes.com] is a lot better at 3 times the energy density and half the cost, and it's a lot closer to market.

I can't help but notice Envia's major investor is General Motors. After what they did to their production all-electric cars, and given that Tesla is a competitor, I have a feeling the Envia battery will vanish without a trace for 20 years, until the patents expire.

I think that there's more to it than just Arpa-E and the feds preventing burial, I think that it's also that there's too much non-car interest and research in battery tech - cell phones, laptops, etc...

Plus, conspiracies aside, you have to remember GM is a car company - it wants to sell cars. It's not an oil company looking to sell fuel it pulled out of the ground. If it can sell an EV for a profit, it'll do so. If it's the only one who can produce economical EVs, it stands to make a killing.

You're making the same fatal mistake that economists have been making since economics was invented (and is the reason why everything an economist says is absolutely worthless bullshit). You assume rational self-interest, in all things. Have you not heard about the fate of the EV-1? It was profitable, so by definition it was already economical, at least in the twisted economics of pure capitalism, so why wasn't it mass-produced a decade ago? Why was every single leased EV-1 (and they were all leased) tak

Have you not heard about the fate of the EV-1? It was profitable, so by definition it was already economical, at least in the twisted economics of pure capitalism, so why wasn't it mass-produced a decade ago?

Define profitable. It's my understanding that GM only produced it to placate California, and lost it's proverbial shorts on every sale, even with the rebates.

The reason is GM may be a car company, but it does things for irrational reasons, because it is run by people. And people do stuff that makes no sense.

It's not just GM though. You'd think that one of the hundreds of car companies out there would be making a killing producing EVs if it was possible to do so profitably.

Because the patents for nickel-metal hydride batteries were owned by Standard Oil, and they sued. And won.

A 'quick googling' suggests you need to adjust your aluminum foil hat and go back and reread the stuff again. Standard Oil hasn't been around for a while, it was Chevron. Still, this

GM never sold a single EV-1. They refused to make them available for sale. They only leased them. Whether or not they were profitable to manufacture is an argument. GM says they weren't, but bills all the R&D to the few that were made. People claim they were, reading GM's financial statements, as long as the R&D could have been amortized over a larger production run. Not a very strong point, I admit.

I don't need a goddamn tinfoil hat. I couldn't be bothered to check who it was. Yes, Chevron.

GM never sold a single EV-1. They refused to make them available for sale. They only leased them.

Semantics. They sold leases. Income was still generated, insufficient amounts of income to pay for the production costs, much less R&D.

I don't need a goddamn tinfoil hat. I couldn't be bothered to check who it was. Yes, Chevron. Thanks for nothing for the snide correction after you verified the basis of what I said.

At least I checked, right? To continue to be snide - I Didn't say tinfoil. Said Aluminum.(/pedantic) Yes, you mentioned California in your post, but I must of missed it, and I consider the 'flavor' of our usage to be different - you seemed to imply that they were going

1: Sodium is trivially extracted from seawater, so that component just came down by 90%

2: If you watch the video clip, you'll see a glance at a diagram which shows no capacity loss out past 50 cycles (It doesn't show where capacity loss starts). It's towards the end of the clip where they talk about 300mAh/g capacities (cycles aren't mentioned but are on the diagram)

3: Using pyrolised sugar means the cost of the anode just came down 90%

Coal is significantly cheaper to use as a source of carbon than sugar is, whether you buy it by the short ton (2000 pounds) as a big ol' company, or at the local Bi-Lo or grocery store.

A ton of sugar would cost a lot more than a ton of coal. [mongabay.com] http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/sugar.html [mongabay.com] . The amount of coal is so abundant still that the market price of it is lower than the cost of raising sugar-cane or sugar-beets and refining them into sugar.

What makes li-ion batteries expensive is not the li, or other chemicals. Likewise, it is not the labor. It is the expense of heating the li up to 1250C. Now, to create these batteries, you have to go to higher temps In addition, it has said nothing about charge cycles.

So first they are not sugar batteries, but batteries with anodes made of carbon derived from sugar. Second, the poster feels they will be good for disolvable electronics for the body, but again you are not disolving sugar but some carbonized derivative of sugar which is probably actually toxic to the body.

Its an epic fail when a \. post doesn't RTFA nor understand the article they are posting.

I cannot find the right words to say how much this offends me. There are plenty of other places to get carbon that does not mean driving up the cost of food for everyone else, especially in poorer countries, like what has happened with corn/maize.

--BMO

Meh, we just plant more beets or cane.There's no shortage [reuters.com] of sugar in the world, so its not like you are taking food out of people's mouth.

In these countries, traditional healthy diets, made up of grains, beans, vegetables, fresh fruit and animal products are being replaced by more processed and junk foods high in saturated fats, salt and sugar.

Batteries may turn out to be the best use for excess sugar, since the alternative would be eating it.

We're using corn, soybeans, etc. as fuel. They're the energy source, so a lot of the market goes into fuel instead of food. Run out of fuel, you need more corn.

These guys are using sugar to make a component on the battery. The energy comes from somewhere else. No matter how many times you recharge the battery, you won't use any more sugar.

Even if we went into full scale production of these and replaced Li-Ion batteries altogether, it wouldn't make an appreciable difference on the sugar market.

As an aside, you also have to consider that by removing the requirement of lithium, you're moving from a scarce resource to a common one. We could make those batteries in the U.S. (or whatever country you happen to be in) and not require buying lithium from China. Lithium is used for several drugs, and by removing the demand for lithium, those drugs may drop in price to the point they'll be more accessible to people in poorer countries.

As a guess, I'd say it was because grass clippings and other vegetable matter aren't very consistant and would require refining to attain the purity of carbon needed.

Sugar (sucrose, anyway) is a refined product. I know, I pick up truckloads of it in Louisiana from the Domino refinery every now and again:) A fellow truck driver got a bag of raw sugar off a dump truck that was being delivered there, but he couldn't use it because it had sand in it.

I could separate sand and sugar and if I had no other source of sugar or my time was worth nothing I might. With the price of sugar as it is it wouldn't take many minutes of effort before it wasn't worth it, even for a truck driver.

Wise guy says:1) If a person is in a survival situation, eating sugar that contained sand would be preferable to starving.

If you have the luxury of time and potable water, then:2) Simple Filtering: Sugar is more soluble in water than sand. Add water, pass it through a filter. Drink or dry it out as necessary.3) Flocculation/Filtering: Mix it with water, add a chemical (maybe starch or gluten?) that bonds to the sand particles, making it easier to filter them out.4) Fermentation/Moonshine: Just add water and

1) He's not starving, he wanted it for the novelty.2) This works with refined sugar. This is raw sugar. Yes, you'd get some sugar out doing this, but it's not the same.3) He's a truck driver, not a chemist, and raw sugar isn't evenly granulated.4) That's not what he wanted the sugar for.

Even if we went into full scale production of these and replaced Li-Ion batteries altogether, it wouldn't make an appreciable difference on the sugar market.

And if these can be made from palm sugar instead of cane sugar, all we need to do is replace the world's remaining tropical rainforest with more palm plantations and all our supply problems are gone, right?

That's why you should use a car (turning mineral oil into mechanical energy) instead of walking (turning food into mechanical energy);-)Oh, and don't think. Thinking involves turning food into electricity (in the neurons), and therefore also is a sin.